pkpanda

@NamelessGod99 @taresky 是第一年付费的50%返佣，不是保单总价值的50%。

@taresky 以我对保险的了解，佣金确实是高的，但是你说返佣能到50%+就有点夸张了，有没有懂哥说说哪款可以到50%？

#投资 我不懂保险，但是我懂人啊😁

@liqian_ren The positive externalities math is always messy and ROI is hard to calculate. Wasteful infra in the name of positive externalities in many cases are not mutually exclusive, and result in unsustainable local debt. But hey, still beats the 1tn military spending I suppose.

We are taking kids to Guizhou as the family elder wants to spend the summer in the cooler mountains, for $40/day all inclusive summer hotel. Many have laughed at the "bridge to nowhere" spending by China in these poorer provinces yet never understand how transportation is so key for the poorest living in China's remote areas. We go where the family elder goes as the purpose of the summer trip is to see them. As someone from the Zhejiang which is richer in both money and culture, I will probably never go to Guizhou except summer vacation and go where the elder decide to go.

@liqian_ren @SecRubio The simpler answer is diplomatic immunity. Rubio did not enjoy such privileges when he was a senator, but now he does and will be allowed to enter the country unless he is declared persona non grata

I hope people also consider a perspective, that China welcoming @SecRubio probably has nothing to do with name change, but subtle way to show willingness to do things, cold or warm hearted, to compete with US. To say this is face saving is in some way under estimating China.

@DavidZhang360 Still infinitely more possible than your shithead cult leader being a fucking Buddha reincarnated.

Zero chance this happens

@TheProfInvestor What kind of retarded math is missing by over 100%? That is mathematically impossible and financially meaningless. A loss is a loss, simple as that, no need to do 1400% shit.

$HIMS MISSED EPS BY 1400%. Holy smokes

@Aiallmaker 希望通过这种间接持股，来享受增值并不是非常好的理由，投资控股公司向来不会有太高的估值。如果投资人真是遵循这个逻辑的话，亚马逊的估值背书。可能会比现在更低。

@Aiallmaker 第一，你没算非上市公司的流动性折价，一般在15-20%。第二，即使上市后，不能乐观认为投资者会因为亚马逊对anthropic的持股，进行充分定价，还是会有流动性折价的考量。满打满算，anthropic能到亚马逊市值的5%就很好了。

Google、AMZN和微软不仅是全球前三的巨型云厂，它们同时还持有Anthropic、OAI的大额股权，不仅两大最强模型的算力需求会让它们受益，而且两大模型不断水涨船高的市值最终在IPO时也会成为天量收益体现在三大云厂的报表上，最终反映在股价上。因此，现在持有Google、AMZN和微软，本质上就是持有和享受Anthropic、OAI的股权和成长，这比等IPO时追高靠谱得多。

@BTCdayu Codex的特点是异常严谨，很多时候严谨到会用py去规范需要本来5.5可以完全胜任的工作，以至于到最后出来的效果是负面的。我现在花更多精力在让codex少给自己设限制，多让5.5发挥自身优势，让搭建的投研工作流能更有深度，更快，花在不必要存在环节上的token更少。

gpt 5.5 和claude 4.7 高强度使用了一段时间后，确定GPT多角度完胜CLAUDE了（我没有使用API和编程，那方面不知道）。 GPT的更强的点在于准确度和严谨性，在AI幻觉上是很认真在做。 CLAUDE4.7 的问题在于，不但严谨性有问题，而且努力程度也有巨大差别，此前说修正了，但目前看来并没有，极度偷懒。

@XXFC2025 @Areskapitalon 这跟什么主义没问题，你没理解我的意思。任何科层结构的组织都有代理人问题。不管你是大公司，还是政治组织，只要足够大，就会出现这样的问题。

@HSPekingpanda @Areskapitalon 你是说到源头了，如此之大的中心化组织，就必然有如此的问题。理论来说，越多聪明人分权力，普通人才会过的更好，资本主义就是足够分润聪明人才能一直发展壮大的

其实最深层原因可能也不是认知不足。内参也许只是推动了这件事情。反右，大跃进和三年大饥荒这些事情，党干部欺上瞒下推不开责任，但是之后这些党干部做了一个集体选择，就是把责任归结到毛头上，并将其架空。 这导致毛对党干部有极强烈深刻的不信任，抱着这种巨大的不安全感发动了文革。也许，也可以解读为毛对他的这些老战友们为何如此背叛仍然在情感上难以接受，认为党干部群体的堕落不是无药可救的，仍然存在被群众革命教育的可能。发动文革不是为了推翻他们，而是为了最后一次挽救他们。 所以，毛没有“冷酷”到把他的战友们当作纯粹的博弈对手和经济动物看待，而这可能正是悲剧发生的原因。事后看来，这是一个巨大的、深刻的悲剧。

@Areskapitalon 还请答主多分享，每次看你的文章都受益匪浅。虽然我不完全同意你所有观点，但我觉得不同观点也是完善你交易逻辑最重要的一环之一，看不得不同意见，那么就会陷入自己的信息茧房，那爆仓只是时间问题。

@HSPekingpanda 市场又不是绕着任何一个人转的，也许有些人理解为自己打自己脸，只能证明他们连市场的门都没进呢。

另外就是，也明白了一点，市场不是一个拼个输赢你死我活的地方。你不一定要显得比别人强。因为共识和趋势的性质是，只有别人一起赚钱，你才能赚钱。

@Areskapitalon 不过我最欣赏答主的一点是足够灵活，愿意公开自己打自己的脸，这比某些博主强太多了。交易就要实事求是，不自欺欺人。

@Areskapitalon 我还有一部分油的仓位，主要还是从多元化的角度来看的，加上每年6-7%的分红和一定的资本增值也挺香，剩下的都是CPU+存储+半导体ETF，还有一小部分neocloud。AI这个周期对人类文明发展的影响远大于过去互联网，移动互联网和新能源的总和，那么这也终将反映在定价中。

@Areskapitalon 的确是，从后期中美建交可以看出来毛是一个伟大的务实主义者。意识形态只是他达到目标的手段，而不是目标本身。很唏嘘的是，毛自己也知道自己在现代经济和科技这方面认知不足，当时在延安的时候还经常劝手下多学科学，说自己最大的遗憾就是理科不好。

@abcampbell @zephyr_z9 It is bigger than what AMAC shows as high flyer has more or less stopped taking outside money and is gradually turning into a proprietary fund that only manages its own money. The trend has been going on for a long time

@zephyr_z9 link? I would think he would still have to register it with Asset Management Association of China (AMAC) obviously I could be wrong, but I would think there would be some corroboration of it

tech ppl are so stupid when it comes to finance they hear 'hedge fund' and eyes glaze over with dollar signs Liang doesn't have $3bn liquid, must be borrowing from banks (aka gov) to do this you can't make $3bn liquid on a $10bn fund, even at 2/20 x.com/cryptopunk7213…

@henrysgao You couldn’t give a shit about Chinese people. You have this perverted urge to shit on every achievement coming of China, dismissing it as either fake or unsustainable. So don’t you dare coming in here claiming moral high ground, for you sit firmly at the bottom of ethics ladder

As much as I disagree with Hauge, his view appears to be widely shared across many circles in Europe, Canada, and Australia: if China can produce goods more cheaply in sectors we no longer produce ourselves, why should we care about the “China shock”? The answer is that we should care — out of concern not only for workers in our own countries, but also for ordinary people in China and across the developing world. According to Hauge, China is not “unfairly flooding” the world with goods because it is simply “climbing the value chain and following a model any developing country should pursue: export-led industrialisation.” But this is a rather shallow view, because it conveniently ignores a crucial fact: China’s decades of export-led growth did not produce the kind of rising household incomes and consumption that would normally accompany successful industrial upgrading. Historically, East Asian economies such as Japan and South Korea moved up the value chain by gradually allowing wages and domestic consumption to rise. As labor costs increased, lower-end manufacturing industries naturally shifted to poorer developing countries, allowing others to climb the development ladder in turn. China, however, largely broke this pattern. Nearly fifty years after the beginning of economic reform, China’s share of household consumption in GDP remains extraordinarily low and has even fallen from the levels seen around 1989–1990. Rather than moving up the ladder and passing lower-end opportunities to poorer countries, China has sought to dominate every rung of the ladder simultaneously — from low-value manufacturing to advanced industries such as EVs, batteries, solar panels, AI, and high-tech manufacturing. The result is that both developed and developing countries increasingly find themselves squeezed out of opportunities for industrial growth. I also agree with Hauge that the Chinese government has repeatedly called for boosting domestic consumption, especially since the introduction of the “dual circulation” strategy in 2020. But very little has actually changed. If anything, the consumption share of GDP has continued to stagnate or decline. Why? Because the CCP understands that genuinely boosting consumption — through stronger welfare systems, higher wages, and greater household income — would weaken the other two pillars of China’s growth model: investment and exports. It would weaken investment because higher household consumption means lower household savings, which in turn means state-owned banks would have fewer deposits to channel into the sectors Beijing considers strategically vital in its competition with the US: EVs, semiconductors, high-tech manufacturing, and AI. It would also weaken exports because higher wages and stronger labor protections would raise production costs, making Chinese exports less competitive internationally. Yet exports remain the last major engine sustaining China’s slowing economy. In this sense, while China broadly followed the classic East Asian developmental model during the first three decades of reform, over the past twenty years it has increasingly shifted toward something closer to a Soviet-style system: one where the state systematically suppresses household consumption in order to maximize capital accumulation, industrial expansion, and strategic production. So why should the world push China to change its economic model? Not out of hostility toward China, but precisely out of concern for ordinary Chinese people, for developing countries that are denied room to industrialize, and ultimately for future generations everywhere — so they do not end up living in a world where only one country is allowed meaningful opportunities for economic growth.

@jessijingyicao @GergelyOrosz Oh the simplest answer is nobody uses Grok. Currently the demand is so high for frontier model that even OpenAi, the company that spent stupid amount of money on computer, is cutting back on usage limit for plus users.

@GergelyOrosz Or maybe they just planned ahead while others didn't

So let me get this right: 1. Anthropic bans xAI from using Claude (to stop them from perhaps distilling Claude for their own model) (...) 2. xAI gives up ~a quarter of its DC capacity for Anthropic to rent and run Claude A win for Anthropic no doubt. What's in it for xAI tho?

@vshih2 @GlennLuk 32mn? U meant HKD 36bn on HKD 890bn of revenue right? Thats roughly 4% net margin, not the best, but still okish considering the extremely fierce competition.

@GlennLuk But how is he not right? BYD made 32 million HKD on 800 billion HKD in sales in 2025 and they are probably the best in the bunch

Brad makes an explicit claim that Chinese carmakers are unprofitable on domestic sales. When challenged to provide evidence of this claim, this thread is his response.